Roach v. Ingram, 557 S.W.3d 203

Background

Parents Roach and Brady sued Fort Bend County officials, FBISD trustees, Juvenile Board judges, and others alleging an unauthorized "Truancy Court" and widespread ultra vires and due-process violations in criminal truancy enforcement.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and prospective injunctive relief (no money damages) and class certification; attorneys Harrington, Soto, Anhalt, and Isgitt represented them.
After plaintiffs filed suit, FBISD suspended referrals and the Legislature decriminalized truancy (HB 2398), expunging prior criminal truancy records; the individual truancy complaints against the plaintiffs’ children were dismissed.
Defendants filed a mix of TCPA motions, Rule 91a motions, pleas to the jurisdiction, and requests for sanctions/attorney’s fees. Plaintiffs filed an improper “counter-TCPA” motion in response.
The trial court dismissed the suit, granted TCPA/91a pleas and pleas to the jurisdiction as applicable, denied plaintiffs’ counter-TCPA motion, and awarded substantial sanctions and attorney’s fees against the parents and their attorneys.
On appeal the court affirmed in all respects: judgment not void, no disqualification, TCPA applicable to officials in official capacity, plaintiffs failed to meet TCPA prima facie burden, claims against many defendants moot or without basis, and sanctions were supported and not excessive.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Final judgment void because interlocutory TCPA appeal stayed trial court	Premature notice of interlocutory appeal stayed proceedings; judgment signed during stay is void	A judgment signed during a statutory stay is voidable, not void; no timely trial-court objection was made	Overruled — judgment not void; error waived for lack of timely objection
2. Judge disqualification (Judge Elliott)	Judge Elliott, as Juvenile Board member, had a personal/pecuniary interest and should be disqualified	Naming a judge or related official standing alone is insufficient; interest must be direct and immediate	Overruled — plaintiffs failed to show a disqualifying direct pecuniary or personal interest
3. Counter-TCPA motion allowable	Plaintiffs: TCPA "legal action" includes motions; counter-TCPA was proper	Defendants: "Legal action" refers to claims/pleadings that vindicate a claim; countermotion to dismiss not covered	Overruled — TCPA does not authorize a countermotion to dismiss; counter-TCPA improper (agreeing with Paulsen)
4. TCPA applicable to government officials sued in official capacity	Plaintiffs: applying TCPA to officials would eviscerate ultra vires suits	Defendants: TCPA text covers communications on matters of public concern by officials; statute controls	Held — TCPA may apply to government officials in official capacity; communications about truancy were protected
5. Judicial Defs' TCPA dismissal (ultra vires claims)	Plaintiffs: produced clear and specific evidence of ultra vires acts by Juvenile Board	Defendants: claims target communications/votes and thus fall within TCPA; plaintiffs produced no clear, specific prima facie evidence	Overruled — Judicial Defs met burden; plaintiffs failed to establish prima facie ultra vires claims
6. Pleas to jurisdiction by FBISD & County (mootness/standing)	Plaintiffs: decriminalization does not moot prospective relief because violations could recur under civil system	Defendants: legislative overhaul decriminalized prior system and expunged records; challenged conduct cannot reasonably recur	Held — claims as to past criminal-truancy scheme moot; pleas to jurisdiction properly granted
7. Rule 91a dismissal (Dobbs)	Plaintiffs: Dobbs had role in scheme; claims viable	Dobbs: pleadings lack factual allegations showing he acted without authority; no basis in law or fact	Overruled — Dobbs' Rule 91a granted; plaintiffs failed to plead specific ultra vires acts by Dobbs
8. Class certification denial	Plaintiffs: trial court failed to timely consider Rule 42	Defendants: timing was within trial-court discretion; merits dismissed so class certification irrelevant	Held — denial not error after dismissal of all claims
9–12. Sanctions (basis, amount, explanation, appellate fees)	Plaintiffs: sanctions unsupported, inadequately explained, excessive, and appellate-fee award unenforceable	Defendants: pleadings and conduct were frivolous; plaintiffs persisted after mootness and warnings; sanctions tailored to deter and reimburse fees; issues insufficiently briefed/preserved	Held — sanctions and fee awards supported; specificity objection waived; amounts not excessive; appellate-fee complaint waived

Key Cases Cited

In re Lipsky, 460 S.W.3d 579 (Tex. 2015) (explaining TCPA purpose and procedures)
Roccaforte v. Jefferson County, 341 S.W.3d 919 (Tex. 2011) (a judgment during a stay is voidable and complainant must timely object)
Paulsen v. Yarrell, 537 S.W.3d 224 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017) (TCPA does not treat a countermotion to dismiss as a "legal action")
Texas Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d 217 (Tex. 2004) (standards for plea to the jurisdiction and justiciability)
Matthews ex rel. M.M. v. Kountze Indep. Sch. Dist., 484 S.W.3d 416 (Tex. 2016) (voluntary cessation and mootness; test whether challenged conduct could reasonably recur)
Nath v. Texas Children's Hospital, 446 S.W.3d 355 (Tex. 2014) (standards on sanctions: nexus, proportionality, and due process)
Zeifman v. Nowlin, 322 S.W.3d 804 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010) (affirming substantial sanctions under Rule 13)